Honest debate of Lordship Salvation

canadyjd (and others),

To some extent, hearing and reading JM, I believe that he is coming over to the free will side in this "response" teaching. He hasn't quite yet averred that this is how regeneration comes -- by hearing God's word and responding repentantly unto salvation. But I do believe that the unsaved, hearing just this invitation to respond to Jesus as Savior and Lord could be saved.

I like and respect Lou on his POV also. JM's not far from teaching us to judge one another's and our own salvation by works of our hands that we might hypocritically "force" into our behavior patterns.

skypair

 

There has been some very good posts on the subject of Lordship.

The question to ask yourself is not "Can I be sinless and please God?", none of us can live up to that.

But our desire should be to please God rather than ourselves.

The question of Lordship is "Whom do we seek to please?" If it is ourselves we are not saved, if it is Christ we are.

A saved person will react to their sinfulness with guilt and humility, praising God for rescuing them from the punishment they deserve.

A lost person will deny their sinfulness or try to justify it. " If no one was hurt what is the problem", " I am as good as the Hipocrites in Church", "I'm not hurting anyone but myself".

Lordship is not a condition of perfection, but is one of gratitude.

 

Why does this strike me as funny? :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

Pontificating??? On the hallowed grounds of the Baptist Board?? Horrors!!

"Say it isn't so, Ethel!!" :laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

1. To some extent I must disagree with MacArthur on some of what he has written in the LS debate, but not all together.

2. I must agree that some of what he has said sounds like a call to immediate discipleship from the get-go for the person coming to the Lord--I disagree with that.

3. But I have found this letter from John Piper to be a balanced approach on the LS issue---check it out

 

Bingo! Yes, you got the point of my question.:thumbs:

 

I know you said 10:13, but i assumed you just misspoke since 10:9 is the one where Jesus as Lord is the double accusative.

Isn't the point there the confession of Jesus as Lord? I don't think Paul was hanging his hat on the vocal chords.

rom 10:9, 10:13, 1 Cor 15, there are loads of them. I didn't imagine that would have to be defended.

I agree that one must accept Christ as Lord to be saved. that is what LS teaches, and it sounds very much like what you did, even though you didn't know it. Did you intend to continue living in known sin when you got saved? Were there sins you were aware of that you intended to hang on to while turning to Jesus for salvation? It didn't sound like it.

That's exactly what it means.

No, not at all. I don't know of any servant, apart from Christ, who always perfectly obeyed. That doesn't mean they weren't servants or didn't recognize the lordship of their master. As MacArthur said, It's not perfection, but direction. (And I know I am not misquoting him.)

Usually the misquotes of MacArthur are by those trying to deny what he actually teaches. he has made it easy to lift a quote here or there and have it misused because it is taken out of the larger context of his writing. That is unfortunate.

 

Pastor Larry,

Are you in a 100% agreement with MacArthur on the LS debate? If not, on what do you disagree?

 

Yes, how could it happen! :laugh: :laugh:

Say, Ed, from this quote, are you another Ray Stephens fan? :smilewinkgrin:

 

I kind of got all confused on that post. I guess it was late.

How can there be a confession without speech? The verb here is homologew, literally "to say the same as." But even if you say it can be written, you still have the problem of an illiterate man with no vocal chords.

I think it is obvious that confession of Christ as Lord is not a condition of salvation in that passage. Nowhere else are we told a confession is needed for salvation. V. 10 makes it clear that righteousness comes through the belief. Confession unto righteousness in v. 10 is eis swterian. and should interpreted "on account of salvation," otherwise you are adding a work to salvation, verbal confession. This is much like the problematic baptism passage in Acts 2:38.

Your statement was so vague ("who Christ is and what he did") that I wanted more. Still do.

You're evading the LS teaching by many advocates that one must consciously accept Christ as Lord at the same time he accepts Christ as Savior. For example, Tozer: "Paul did not tell him to believe on the Saviour with the thought that he could later take up the matter of His lordship and settle it at his own convenience" (on Acts 10:36, Renewed Day by Day, Jan. 23--there are no page numbers).

I disagree. The new birth means you are now able to obey Christ when before you were not. It means you now have the desire to obey Christ. It does not mean you consciously make Christ Lord of your life.

I'm purposely avoiding using MacArthur. He seems to be a polarizing force in the whole discussion. Many who love him often immediately defend him without considering the possibility that he may be wrong in something. (I don't accuse you of this.) So a profitable discussion becomes impossible.

I have used some arguments from the Gospel and the book of John that no one has answered yet and that I've not seen LS advocates deal with elsewhere. Until someone answers those arguments, I'll consider my case proven on the BB.

 

I haven't read MacArthur on this in 20 years, since his first book came out, so I have no idea.

 

No problem ... It was late for me, but on the upside I flew over top of you today on my way back to the States.

I don't think it is verbalization, whether with voice or with pen and paper, for exactly the reason you say here. To say the same thing as means to agree. Don't overliteralize it. Compound words are not meant to be taken that way.

I don't find Acts 2:38 all that troubling, and I don't find this troubling in the least. You say that confession of Christ as Lord is not a condition of salvation, but that verse says exactly that: Confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, believe in your heart that God has raised him from the dead, and you shall be saved. Grammatically, You shall be saved is based on both prior clauses that are parallel clauses.

More about what? Who Christ is is Lord; what he did is die for sin. You have to acknowledge that and submit to it. That is saving faith in the NT.

I am not avoiding that in the least. Tozer is exactly right. But we deal with people in their life context.

Why? What is Christ to the believer if not Lord? What else can he be? Can he all of the sudden drop some of his claims?

I haven't seen any convincing arguments from you. The only argument I remember you offering was suggesting that the Synoptic gospels were not written for people to be saved. I can't see even the slightest merit in that argument. The fact that John makes a clear statement of purpose does not mean that the others were written for some other purpose. So I don't think you should consider your case proven at all. I think you have completely dodged Romans 10:9, and even 13.

 

I don't think that perfection is required. The important thing is who or what is the primary focus of your life. That was why the rich young ruler went away unsaved and that's why the prodigal son's return was necessary for him to return to God (his father). As Mathew says:

Mat 6:24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

Someone who is born again will want to follow Christ the rest of their life. Will they be perfect and sinless in doing so? No. But when they stray, their relationship with Jesus Christ will make them want to come back. We're not talking about "works" here. We're talking about the Christian life, an abiding in Christ.

 

canadyjd:

I asked if you have read, cover-to-cover, JM's The Gospel Accordng to Jesus or the revised and expanded edition.

You did not answer. Did you miss that question?

If you are to act as apologist for JM's teaching and have not even read his books, which I am beginning to believe is the case, how can you take up a defense of what you have not read and consequently do not understand?

Have you read his books?


LM

 

When you read that quote by JM he is telling us how he believes the lost man must respond to what he (JM) says is the way to be born again.

The lost man must respond with “surrender, desire, commitment” in “exchange” for the gift of eternal life. JM is teaching a barter system: the lost man’s upfront commitment to discipleship in “exchange” for salvation. See Lordship Salvation’s Barter System

Where you are confusing the issue is with the extra-biblical teaching that regeneration precedes faith.

Another thing you seem not to know, because you have not read JM’s books, you may not be aware that he sees no difference between discipleship and salvation. Therefore, his calls for “whole-hearted commitment” to discipleship is what he believes is the requirement for salvation.

There is a big difference between results of and requirements for salvation. JM and LS advocates blend the two. Their Gospel, therefore, necessitates an upfront commitment to the acts of a disciple as a requirement and in “exchange” for salvation.

You noted,

What you mean is, “responding to the regeneration/conversion that just took place.” JM believes regeneration precedes faith, which is antithetical to Scripture. Nevertheless, since JM believes lost men are regenerated, i.e. born again before faith, repentance and believing. Any "response" and/or commitment he gets, therefore, from the lost man is in his (JM’s) opinion coming from a man that has been born again already.

Before you can discuss this any further and be considered credible you need to state one way or the other whether or not you have read (cover-to-cover) at least JM’s first two LS apologetics and that you have them at your side. Have you read these by JM cover-to-cover?


LM

 

While I'm waiting for someone to answer my arguments about the book of John and the meaning of the Gospel, consider this.

The book of the NT intended to explain the Gospel theologically is Galatians. This is very clear from the logical progression of Chapter One. Then, the word "gospel" occurs 5 times in ch. 1 and 5 times in the rest of the book, including 3 times in ch. 2.

This book, of course, was written to combat the legalists who wanted Gentiles to obey the law for salvation. Thus, it would be an ideal place for Paul to tell us that one must accept Christ as Lord as well as Savior to be saved. But he doesn't.

The word "Lord" (Gr. kyrios) appears only 7 times in Galatians. (Compare to 25 times in Ephesians, a book of similar length.) One time it just means human boss. The other six times are simply the title Lord for our Savior. Nowhere in the book does it give a clue that we must accept Christ as Lord in order to be saved.